Re: [Linaro-mm-sig] [PATCH 2/3] mutex: add support for reservationstyle locks

From: Maarten Lankhorst
Date: Thu Feb 14 2013 - 09:20:07 EST


Op 14-02-13 11:22, Arnd Bergmann schreef:
> On Thursday 07 February 2013, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
> Hi Maarten,
> I cannot help a lot on this patch set, but there are a few things that
> I noticed when reading it.
>> Functions:
>> ----------
>> mutex_reserve_lock, and mutex_reserve_lock_interruptible:
>> Lock a buffer with a reservation_id set. reservation_id must not be
>> set to 0, since this is a special value that means no reservation_id.
> I think the entire description should go into a file in the Documentation
> directory, to make it easier to find without looking up the git history.
> For the purpose of documenting this, it feels a little strange to
> talk about "buffers" here. Obviously this is what you are using the
> locks for, but it sounds like that is not the only possible use
> case.
It is the idea it will end up in Documentation, however I had a hard time even getting people to
review the code, so I found it easier to keep code and documentation in sync by keeping it into
the commit log when I was amending things.

But yes it's the use case I use it for. The generic use case would be if you had a number of equal
locks you want to take in an arbitrary order without deadlocking or a lock protecting all those locks*.

*) In the eyes of lockdep you still take one of those locks, and nest all those locks you take into that lock.

>> These functions will return -EDEADLK instead of -EAGAIN if
>> reservation_id is the same as the reservation_id that's attempted to
>> lock the mutex with, since in that case you presumably attempted to
>> lock the same lock twice.
> Since the user always has to check the return value, would it be
> possible to provide only the interruptible kind of this function
> but not the non-interruptible one? In general, interruptible locks
> are obviously harder to use, but they are much user friendlier when
> something goes wrong.
I agree that in general you want to use the interruptible versions as much as possible,
but there are some cases in ttm where it is desirable to lock non-interruptibly.

>> mutex_reserve_lock_slow and mutex_reserve_lock_intr_slow:
>> Similar to mutex_reserve_lock, except it won't backoff with -EAGAIN.
>> This is useful when mutex_reserve_lock failed with -EAGAIN, and you
>> unreserved all buffers so no deadlock can occur.
> Are these meant to be used a lot? If not, maybe prefix them with __mutex_
> instead of mutex_.
It is a common path in case of contestion. The example lock_execbuf from the commit log used
it. When you use the mutex_reserve_lock calls, you'll have to add calls to the *_slow variants
too when those return -EAGAIN.

>> diff --git a/include/linux/mutex.h b/include/linux/mutex.h
>> index 9121595..602c247 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mutex.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mutex.h
>> @@ -62,6 +62,11 @@ struct mutex {
>> #endif
>> };
>> +struct ticket_mutex {
>> + struct mutex base;
>> + atomic_long_t reservation_id;
>> +};
> Have you considered changing the meaning of the "count" member
> of the mutex in the case where a ticket mutex is used? That would
> let you use an unmodified structure.
I have considered it, but I never found a good way to make that happen.
mutex_lock and mutex_unlock are currently still used when only a single
buffer needs to be locked.

Thanks for the review!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at